CiF’s Kieron Monks supports terrorism

Kieron Monks is a reporter and editor for Palestine Monitor.  He’s written pieces in the publication accusing “Zionist lobbies” of smearing” such heroic figures as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein, it should be noted, asserts that the Holocaust has been exaggerated and exploited by Jews to justify Israeli human rights violations and crimes against humanity, and supported Hezbollah’s “armed resistance against the Israeli Army in Lebanon.” In the same essay, Monks accuses the Jewish people of having transitioned from “oppressed” to “oppressor”, and – even more shamefully – accuses Jewish groups of desperately “digging deeper for evidence of their victim-hood.”

In another piece for Palestine Monitor, entitled “Human Currency”, in 2009, he argues that Palestinians should not negotiate with Israel, and that force is the only thing which Israelis understand.

So, with such a prolific anti-Israel pedigree, and palpable hostility towards the Jewish community, I wasn’t surprised to see that Comment is Free recently published his essay, on Nov. 19, Palestine aid models must change.

It was these five words in the following passage that initially got my attention:

“The impact of foreign interests can be clearly seen in PA budgets that allocate 10 times more money to security – suppressing resistance to the occupation – than to agriculture, which could be the backbone of the Palestinian economy.”

This passage really caught my eye.  With language, context is everything, but, given his past commentary, its seems clear that it should be read as criticism of the Palestinian security forces attempts to combat extremism, violence, and terrorism against Israelis – a minimal requirement for coexistence in the region.  The words “resistance to the occupation” often are a thinly veiled euphemism for the right to “armed resistance.”

Another passage in his essay lends support to my conclusions.  He says:

Individual NGOs have attempted to assert their independence from donors. Many reject USAID funding due to its political demands, which preclude assistance for projects that could benefit people with affiliations to undesirable political groups. The Dalia Association has introduced a “Village Decides” scheme, focused on institution building, which empowers local communities to invest funding as they see fit, without conditions.

Of course, Monks fails to inform his readers what he means by “undesirable political groups.”  He’s referring to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) guidelines requiring NGOs receiving funds to pledge “not to promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state, nor … make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.”

In the mind of Kieron Monks, requirements that NGOs – who ostensibly are trying to promote peace and human rights in the region – shouldn’t promote terrorism or anti-Semitism are, naturally, a betrayal of the revolution.

Monks – who fetsishizes violent resistance by the most reactionary political movements, and peddles hateful narratives about Jews, yet still styles himself a brave progressive voice – is the perfect embodiment of the Guardian’s consistent betrayal of true liberal values.

There was a time when liberal papers (like the Guardian) were at the forefront in the fight against anti-Semitism.  There was a time when such papers could be relied upon to be in fierce opposition to totalitarianism and unwavering in their defense of democracies  – and never mistook the former for the latter. And, there was a time when liberal papers would see through the thin veneer of folks such as Kieron Monks and see him as the reactionary that he is.

I long for the return of that kind of  crusading and fearless liberal voice in the UK.

10 replies »

  1. Don’t hold your breath..The supine, craven, largely antisemitic Brits have a tradition of siding with enemies of the Jewish people.. As they had no qualms about turning back desperate Jews fleeing Hiter’s extermination for Palestine to appease the Arabs , so today they have no problem in aiding and abetting the would be annihilators of the Jews…

  2. “..Monks …. is the perfect embodiment of the Guardian’s consistent betrayal of true liberal values…”

    But of course. That’s why he’s asked to “write” for them. These people say absolutely nothing new, continually recycle the arguments of others, taking care to include the buzz words calculated to get the intellectually-challenged like papapapaplagagi of infamous memory all hot and excited and away they go! When I look at CiF, I hope that there is a Hell, and that there’s a special circle in it for those who distort reality and mess with the heads of the intellectually challenged. All the staff of CiF should be consigned there along with the fruit loops who write this mush for them and those who actually fall for it.

    One look at Monks’ bio gives him away. You shouldn’t expect anything else. He’s even more of a moral bankrupt than Ben White.

  3. I was more impressed with Monks’ acknowledgment of UNRWA’s failures and that it is the root cause, apart from the Arab countries refusal to resettle the refugees who live among them, which Andrew Whitly acknowledged, than his silly lip service to “resistance”.

    He is a fool, since polls show that the majority of WBers feel more secure now as a result of “suppressing resistance to the occupation” – i.e., ending futile attempts to terrorize Israel and focusing on restoring order in their own house.

    Whitley, of course, outraged the Moslems with his statement:

    Your pressure forced an apology; Continue demands for Andrew Whitley’s dismissal

    We are pleased to announce that pressure from people of conscience like you have forced Whitley to apologize. However, it is imperative that we keep the pressure on until UNRWA removes Whitley from his position as head of its New York office.

    Actually, what these idiots didn’t notice was that Whitley had already resigned, and had accepted a post as some kind of liaison officer with the ghastly “Elders” and there was no “need” to call for his resignation. Once he resigned, he felt the need to tell the truth about UNRWA and the Arab states.

  4. The racist violence that Guardian and Monks would instigate, also happens to be a violation of multiple international documents dating back nearly a century:

    – the San Remo Agreement of 1921
    – UN 181 in 1947
    – UN 282 in 1967
    – the Oslo Accords of 1994

    We thus see that the Guardian not only has no respect for internationa law nor for Jews’ human rights, but is a warmongering institution as well.

  5. With Gitsa Saghal blowing the lid on Amnesty, Whitely and Monks criticizing UNWRA, and Searchlight pledging to take a stand against Islamofascism, I detect a trickle of dissent in the liberal ranks.

    A few have finally realized that being in bed with violent totalitarians and racists is incompatible with their professed principles.

    Now how can this trickle be turned into a flood?

  6. Toko, I agree with you. The Guardian and other propaganda outlets are trying forcefully to create an anti-Jewish, anti-Israel hate mood in the world in general. It seems that they want another Holocaust. I pointed out about a week or so ago that one of harriet sherwood’s pieces, the one on commercial chicken houses in Israel, had much in common with the Nazi Judeophobic propaganda film, Der Ewige Jude. There are some differences. Both Nazi and Guardian/Independent/bbc anti-Israel propaganda vilify Jews and Israel. But in those days, the Nazis also extolled the German or Aryan “master race.” Today, the propaganda sometimes tears down their own people. But they extoll the Arabs and other Muslims. Sometimes pretending that what is wrong with the UK or USA or the West generally is support for Israel. But this is another big lie. We know how the Obama administration especially shows contempt for Jewish human rights. Britain and the EU as a body have been anti-Israel for many years, using alleged Israeli crimes to cover up their own Judeophobia. Alleged crimes against Arabs, especially those Arabs now fashionably called “palestinians” are an excuse for continued Western Judeophobia after the Holocaust. Most of today’s “left” is securely in the pocket of the Judeophobia movement, sometimes funded by EU money. Most of today’s “Left” is a manipulated body of public opinion. It shares the sentiments toward Israel of several important Western govts. And all the hatred is justified by a whole series of lies, a pile of lies, one lie piled on top of another.

  7. A lot of people on the CiF thread were taken aback by that “suppressing resistance to the occupation” line. Other than that dodginess I found it hard to see what his actual point was.

  8. Actually, I find the assertion that “agriculture… could be the backbone of the Palestinian economy.” as revealing as it is absurd.

    Even If they drive the Jews into the sea, the high birthrates sustained by Palestinian Arabs since the beginning of the 20th century, make this impossible. There simply isn’t enough land to support the Arab population, even if they wanted to live as subsistence farmers. Which they emphatically do not. They want fast cars and high-speed internet connections, like everybody else.

    Western activists, however, cherish the idea of a timeless Arab people leading peaceful lives in a timeless pastoral landscape. Kieron is little more than an old-fashioned Orientalist imagining Arabs as possessing a bucolic authenticity that is the opposite of modern life. It is patronizing, condescending and demeaning to the real lives and aspirations of Palestinians.


  9. Good points, Adina. These Western fools believe in the Arabs’ “bucolic authenticity.” I like that. Ironically, perhaps, edward said who complained about Orientalist stereotypes also promoted them. And I think that he was/is one of the influences on such beliefs and fantasies about the Arabs.

    By the way, I live near a lot of Arabs and I see quite a few of them in the several indoor shopping malls here in Jerusalem [The Arabs refute the “apartheid” libel against Israel by arguing with their feet, that is coming to the malls, cafes, Rami Levy supermarkets, etc]. They like to shop like everybody else and they have money to spend. They also like bargains. But they still have their prejudices.

    But on the “high birthrates” issue we may disagree. It is true that the Arabs here had high birthrates in the past. But these have come down and may come down further. Yoram Ettinger has supplied a lot of data on that matter. Of course, as you indicate, the Arabs don’t want to be happy peasants in a bucolic “palestinian state.”